Efficacy of Esthetic Retainers: Clinical Comparison between Multistranded Wires and Direct-Bond Glass Fiber-Reinforced Composite Splints
The purpose of this longitudinal prospective randomized study was to evaluate the reliability of two different types of orthodontic retainers in clinical use: a multistrand stainless steel wire and a polyethylene ribbon-reinforced resin composite. Moreover the level of satisfaction of the patient ab...
Main Authors: | , , , , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Hindawi Limited
2011-01-01
|
Series: | International Journal of Dentistry |
Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/548356 |
id |
doaj-c3bef12676e240c1ba83a55340631a54 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-c3bef12676e240c1ba83a55340631a542020-11-25T01:07:31ZengHindawi LimitedInternational Journal of Dentistry1687-87281687-87362011-01-01201110.1155/2011/548356548356Efficacy of Esthetic Retainers: Clinical Comparison between Multistranded Wires and Direct-Bond Glass Fiber-Reinforced Composite SplintsAndrea Scribante0Maria Francesca Sfondrini1Simona Broggini2Marina D'Allocco3Paola Gandini4Department of Orthodontics and Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Pavia, Piazzale Golgi 2, 27100 Pavia, ItalyDepartment of Orthodontics, University of Pavia, Piazzale Golgi 2, 27100 Pavia, ItalyDepartment of Orthodontics, University of Pavia, Piazzale Golgi 2, 27100 Pavia, ItalyDepartment of Orthodontics, University of Pavia, Piazzale Golgi 2, 27100 Pavia, ItalyDepartment of Orthodontics, University of Pavia, Piazzale Golgi 2, 27100 Pavia, ItalyThe purpose of this longitudinal prospective randomized study was to evaluate the reliability of two different types of orthodontic retainers in clinical use: a multistrand stainless steel wire and a polyethylene ribbon-reinforced resin composite. Moreover the level of satisfaction of the patient about the esthetic result was also analyzed by means of a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). 34 patients (9 boys and 25 girls, mean age 14.3), in the finishing phase of orthodontic treatment, were selected for the study. Since splints were applied the number, cause, and date of splint failures were recorded for each single tooth over 12 months. Statistical analysis was performed using a paired 𝑡-test, Kaplan Meier survival estimates, and the log-rank test. Kruskal Wallis test was performed to analyze VAS recordings. Differences between the bond failure rates were not statistically significant. Esthetic result of VAS was significantly higher for polyethylene ribbon-reinforced resin retainers than for stainless steel wires.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/548356 |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Andrea Scribante Maria Francesca Sfondrini Simona Broggini Marina D'Allocco Paola Gandini |
spellingShingle |
Andrea Scribante Maria Francesca Sfondrini Simona Broggini Marina D'Allocco Paola Gandini Efficacy of Esthetic Retainers: Clinical Comparison between Multistranded Wires and Direct-Bond Glass Fiber-Reinforced Composite Splints International Journal of Dentistry |
author_facet |
Andrea Scribante Maria Francesca Sfondrini Simona Broggini Marina D'Allocco Paola Gandini |
author_sort |
Andrea Scribante |
title |
Efficacy of Esthetic Retainers: Clinical Comparison between Multistranded Wires and Direct-Bond Glass Fiber-Reinforced Composite Splints |
title_short |
Efficacy of Esthetic Retainers: Clinical Comparison between Multistranded Wires and Direct-Bond Glass Fiber-Reinforced Composite Splints |
title_full |
Efficacy of Esthetic Retainers: Clinical Comparison between Multistranded Wires and Direct-Bond Glass Fiber-Reinforced Composite Splints |
title_fullStr |
Efficacy of Esthetic Retainers: Clinical Comparison between Multistranded Wires and Direct-Bond Glass Fiber-Reinforced Composite Splints |
title_full_unstemmed |
Efficacy of Esthetic Retainers: Clinical Comparison between Multistranded Wires and Direct-Bond Glass Fiber-Reinforced Composite Splints |
title_sort |
efficacy of esthetic retainers: clinical comparison between multistranded wires and direct-bond glass fiber-reinforced composite splints |
publisher |
Hindawi Limited |
series |
International Journal of Dentistry |
issn |
1687-8728 1687-8736 |
publishDate |
2011-01-01 |
description |
The purpose of this longitudinal prospective randomized study was to evaluate the reliability of two different types of orthodontic retainers in clinical use: a multistrand stainless steel wire and a polyethylene ribbon-reinforced resin composite. Moreover the level of satisfaction of the patient about the esthetic result was also analyzed by means of a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). 34 patients (9 boys and 25 girls, mean age 14.3), in the finishing phase of orthodontic treatment, were selected for the study. Since splints were applied the number, cause, and date of splint failures were recorded for each single tooth over 12 months. Statistical analysis was performed using a paired 𝑡-test, Kaplan Meier survival estimates, and the log-rank test. Kruskal Wallis test was performed to analyze VAS recordings. Differences between the bond failure rates were not statistically significant. Esthetic result of VAS was significantly higher for polyethylene ribbon-reinforced resin retainers than for stainless steel wires. |
url |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/548356 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT andreascribante efficacyofestheticretainersclinicalcomparisonbetweenmultistrandedwiresanddirectbondglassfiberreinforcedcompositesplints AT mariafrancescasfondrini efficacyofestheticretainersclinicalcomparisonbetweenmultistrandedwiresanddirectbondglassfiberreinforcedcompositesplints AT simonabroggini efficacyofestheticretainersclinicalcomparisonbetweenmultistrandedwiresanddirectbondglassfiberreinforcedcompositesplints AT marinadallocco efficacyofestheticretainersclinicalcomparisonbetweenmultistrandedwiresanddirectbondglassfiberreinforcedcompositesplints AT paolagandini efficacyofestheticretainersclinicalcomparisonbetweenmultistrandedwiresanddirectbondglassfiberreinforcedcompositesplints |
_version_ |
1725186847838044160 |